Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James Austin v. Frederick Schilling, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing without prejudice James Austin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court confined its review to issues raised in Austin's informal brief. Because the brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling, Austin forfeited appellate review. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment without requiring oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-8011

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing without prejudice James Austin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court confined its review to issues raised in Austin's informal brief. Because the brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling, Austin forfeited appellate review. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment without requiring oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    James Austin v. Frederick Schilling, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing without prejudice James Austin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The appellate court confined its review to issues raised in Austin's informal brief. Because the brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling, Austin forfeited appellate review. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment without requiring oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-8011

    JAMES C. AUSTIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    FREDERICK SCHILLING, Director for Health Virginia Dept. of
    Corrections; DR. HAPPY SMITH; DR. BENNY MULLENS; ELLEN
    DAVIS, Registered Nurse, Marion Treatment Facility; VICKKI
    PARSONS PHIPPS, Registered (Head) Nurse, Red Onion State
    Prison,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
    Judge. (7:15-cv-00503-MFU-RSB)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2016

    Decided:

    April 1, 2016

    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James C. Austin, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James
    dismissing
    complaint.
    raised

    in

    C.

    Austin

    without

    appeals

    prejudice

    the
    his

    district
    42

    courts

    U.S.C.

    1983

    order
    (2012)

    On appeal, we confine our review to the issues


    the

    Appellants

    brief.

    See

    4th

    Cir.

    R.

    34(b).

    Because Austins informal brief does not challenge the basis for
    the district courts disposition, Austin has forfeited appellate
    review
    district

    of

    the

    courts

    courts

    order.

    judgment.

    Accordingly,

    We

    dispense

    with

    we

    affirm

    oral

    the

    argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    We conclude that the district courts order is final and


    appealable.
    See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Socy, Inc., 807
    F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).

    You might also like